Court case on whether Brexit can be reversed to be filed Friday

[jpinx]

11 hours ago, eeyang wah said:

It truly is a messy situation! The government promised they would follow whatever the people decided, but it turns out they didn't have the power to make that promise. 

They did - it's been done before, but the SC ignored that, and several other facts.  It's immaterial now - - the new bill is in front of Parliament and TMthePM will hurry it through. :)   

[Deepinthailand]

Seems to me that a lot of people are loosing a long standing basic human right. The right to be heard. The vote was leave clear simple unambiguous leave. Now it seems that the lesser no voters are trying to gag the yes voters taking away democracy and people's basic human rights. Luckily enough there is a strong PM in charge who will listen to those voices an leave the EU as the British people asked for.

[evadgib]

They can't sulk forever.

[RuamRudy]

4 hours ago, prestburypark said:

I don't believe that 52 % of the British public are so naive as to have been hoodwinked by a bit of pre-vote propaganda, any more than the 48% who voted remain were.

Brexiters won, no doubt about it - but your statement above is incorrect. 52% of the British public did not back Brext - in reality only around 34% of the public voted to leave if memory serves me correctly. Admittedly, that is more than voted to stay, but to suggest that half the population demonstrated a desire to leave the EU is incorrect. Call me a pedant, but when such nuanced mistakes get slipped into general thinking, they have a tendency to become fact in many peoples' minds.

[Deepinthailand]

9 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Brexiters won, no doubt about it - but your statement above is incorrect. 52% of the British public did not back Brext - in reality only around 34% of the public voted to leave if memory serves me correctly. Admittedly, that is more than voted to stay, but to suggest that half the population demonstrated a desire to leave the EU is incorrect. Call me a pedant, but when such nuanced mistakes get slipped into general thinking, they have a tendency to become fact in many peoples' minds.

Easy really 52% of those that voted on the day, voted to leave. Doesn't matter how many votedoh and your figures are wrong

Electorate46,501,241

Turnout72.2%

Edited January 28, 2017 by Deepinthailand

[RuamRudy]

1 minute ago, Deepinthailand said:

Easy really 52% of those that voted on the day, voted to leave. Doesn't matter how many voted.

 

I am pretty certain I acknowledged that in my post - it is not in dispute. But what the OP wrote was incorrect and I feel it is important that this mistake is highlighted.

[sandyf]

1 hour ago, Deepinthailand said:

Seems to me that a lot of people are loosing a long standing basic human right. The right to be heard. The vote was leave clear simple unambiguous leave. Now it seems that the lesser no voters are trying to gag the yes voters taking away democracy and people's basic human rights. Luckily enough there is a strong PM in charge who will listen to those voices an leave the EU as the British people asked for.

About sums it up, your basic human rights are more important than the basic human rights of others.

[RuamRudy]

36 minutes ago, Deepinthailand said:

Easy really 52% of those that voted on the day, voted to leave. Doesn't matter how many votedoh and your figures are wrong

Electorate46,501,241

Turnout72.2%

 

You are correct - my memory failed me. 37.4% of UK voters voted to leave the EU, or, if you prefer, almost 4 in every 10 Brits backed Brexit.

[jpinx]

44 minutes ago, sandyf said:

About sums it up, your basic human rights are more important than the basic human rights of others.

Stop waffling about "human rights" -- there are none at stake.  Both the EU and UK have signed up for the human rights treaties with the UN

[eeyang wah]

7 hours ago, smedly said:

 

I was responding to your pile of drivel that you decided to exclude from the reply

 

I believe my post was very easy to understand and requires absolutely no explanation - keep reading it until it makes sense or get an adult to help you

Yes thank you, your post was very easy to understand and may I say again that I completely agree with you: The UK almost certainly is leaving the EU. What I don't understand is why you feel it necessary to spell this out to me? I never argued against it!

 

I read the post by thisisnotmyrealname and felt it was so terrible that I was compelled to respond and explain why it was so bad. How about you read my post and do the same? That's how an intelligent discussion works. 

[ResandePohm]

16 hours ago, The Dark Lord said:

There are far too many bad losers on TVF. 

 

Time to to grow up kiddos, the referendum was NOT advisory, there was no use of the word advisory or any expression pertaining to it.

 

jeez you guys, get a life!

You need to check your facts. The result of the referendum is not legally binding. In other words it is advisory.

 

You fascist  racists that call yourselves patriotic. This leave vote is likely to lead to the break up  of Britain and which cannot legitimately call itself Great any longer. Very patriotic to sponsor the demise of a once Great country by initiating its break up.

 

You do realize that the pound has already dropped in value by more than 20% and is still falling. If you actually live in Thailand (which I doubt) watch as your British income and savings gradually diminish. If you live in the UK watch as all the prices rise and your Thailand holiday becomes unaffordable

[raro]

This discussion is sliding off to a much too personal level. I am not  in the mood to clean up every bit, but from here on all nastiness stops.

[14Stevie]

21 hours ago, Bureaucrat said:

Is that what you read in the The Daily Mail?

Unlike you - who can purportedly accurately tell everyone "Their decision to leave was based on propaganda from the UKIP and other right wing tories who tried as hard as they could to exploit voters fears about immigration. MP's know this and will vote accordingly." the Daily Mail cannot accurately predict your posts and therefore influence any response from me. 

You profess to tell everyone why the 52% voted and any contest to your fully fact statement (not) you retort with "Go and join trump" and the above, to which I believe I'm entitled to reply.   

Get real, stick to the facts and stay on topic (Trump and Daily Mail are clearly not) instead of petty snide remarks.

[7by7]

2 hours ago, raro said:

This discussion is sliding off to a much too personal level. I am not  in the mood to clean up every bit, but from here on all nastiness stops.

 

And very little of it has anything to do with the OP!

 

This case in an Irish court has got nothing to do with any attempt by anyone to stop Article 50 from being triggered; or even delay it.

 

The case is about whether or not, having triggered Article 50 a member state can change it's mind, halt the leaving process and so remain in the EU after all.

 

Whatever the court's decision , and what ever the decision of the ECJ should it go that far, which it will, that decision will not stop the UK government from triggering Article 50 nor prevent the UK leaving the EU.

 

People should read the OP in full and not just the headline before posting!

 

[jpinx]

8 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

And very little of it has anything to do with the OP!

 

This case in an Irish court has got nothing to do with any attempt by anyone to stop Article 50 from being triggered; or even delay it.

 

The case is about whether or not, having triggered Article 50 a member state can change it's mind, halt the leaving process and so remain in the EU after all.

 

Whatever the court's decision , and what ever the decision of the ECJ should it go that far, which it will, that decision will not stop the UK government from triggering Article 50 nor prevent the UK leaving the EU.

 

People should read the OP in full and not just the headline before posting!

 

Absolutely incorrect.  The involvement of an Irish court was incidental and only because the action needs to get up to the ECJ if necessary. The Irish legal system is similar to UK and so is an easy start point.  The intention is to ascertain if Art50 is irrevocable or not --  this in spite of the author of Art50 saying that it *is* reversible. 

[7by7]

I said

13 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

The case is about whether or not, having triggered Article 50 a member state can change it's mind, halt the leaving process and so remain in the EU after all.

You say

 

2 minutes ago, jpinx said:

The intention is to ascertain if Art50 is irrevocable or not

How is my statement 'absolutely incorrect' but yours correct?

 

Please also explain how

14 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Whatever the court's decision , and what ever the decision of the ECJ should it go that far, which it will, that decision will not stop the UK government from triggering Article 50 nor prevent the UK leaving the EU.

is incorrect.

[jpinx]

2 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

I said

You say

 

How is my statement 'absolutely incorrect' but yours correct?

 

Please also explain how

is incorrect.

Stop being argumentative!

You said....

"....This case in an Irish court has got nothing to do with any attempt by anyone to stop Article 50 from being triggered; or even delay it. ..."

It has everything to do with exactly that, or making it as difficult as possible to negotiate a reasonable deal.

If it is triggered and irrevocable, all the EU has to do is twiddle it's thumbs for 2 years and then present a crappy deal which is only slightly better than the "no deal" alternative.

 

 

 

[i claudius]

The remainers can huff and puff till the cows come home ,we will leave the E.U in the end

Sent from my ASUS_T00J using Tapatalk

[Alan Deer]

Brexit must be stopped, one way or another it is a total disaster - it no longer can even draw on a majority to defend it yet the loony right are desperately trying to push something - ...anything through....in order to keep their surprise jobs.

 

if you are in any doubt about Brexit, just take a moment and try to find a single rational argument in favour of it........there simply isn't one.

[jpinx]

8 minutes ago, Alan Deer said:

Brexit must be stopped, one way or another it is a total disaster - it no longer can even draw on a majority to defend it yet the loony right are desperately trying to push something - ...anything through....in order to keep their surprise jobs.

 

if you are in any doubt about Brexit, just take a moment and try to find a single rational argument in favour of it........there simply isn't one.

Becoming a colony of Germany might be acceptable to France and others, but not UK.    To say that there is no reason to stay merely demonstrates the narrow-minded ambitions of the people advocating remaining in the EU.  The biggest reason to leave is that the majority of voters said so, and that's democracy. :)

Edited January 28, 2017 by jpinx

[7by7]

24 minutes ago, jpinx said:

Stop being argumentative!

 

This is a forum; a place for debate; debating means presenting arguments!

 

26 minutes ago, jpinx said:

You said....

"....This case in an Irish court has got nothing to do with any attempt by anyone to stop Article 50 from being triggered; or even delay it. ..."

It has everything to do with exactly that,

As far as the UK government is concerned, Article 50 will be triggered, we will leave the EU. May and her government has made that clear.

 

Other than a General Election in the meantime being won by a party promising to halt Brexit, I cannot see anyway that will change; whatever the outcome of this case.

 

30 minutes ago, jpinx said:

or making it as difficult as possible to negotiate a reasonable deal.

If it is triggered and irrevocable, all the EU has to do is twiddle it's thumbs for 2 years and then present a crappy deal which is only slightly better than the "no deal" alternative.

May has already said that no deal is better than a bad deal. But I doubt very much that either she or the other 27 want that.

 

It is in the interests of the other 27 to negotiate a deal which favours them; it is in the interests of the UK to negotiate a deal which favours us. Negotiations will result in something in the middle; they wont get everything they want, neither will we. In every negotiation, both sides have to compromise.

 

[Deepinthailand]

23 minutes ago, Alan Deer said:

Brexit must be stopped, one way or another it is a total disaster - it no longer can even draw on a majority to defend it yet the loony right are desperately trying to push something - ...anything through....in order to keep their surprise jobs.

 

if you are in any doubt about Brexit, just take a moment and try to find a single rational argument in favour of it........there simply isn't one.

I have to completely disagree. 1 point (I can think of so many) the EU will no longer tell the British what size and type of bend a bannana has to have. And yes they did before you say rubish.

Not my main reasons for getting out of EU but something like that just proves how pedantic the EU parliament really are wasting money on silly stupid directives

Edited January 28, 2017 by Deepinthailand

[7by7]

4 minutes ago, Deepinthailand said:

I have to completely disagree. 1 point (I can think of so many) the EU will no longer tell the British what size and type of bend a bannana has to have. And yes they did before you say rubish.

 Panto season is nearly over; but "Oh no they didn't!"

Bendy Bananas And Barmaid Bosoms: The U.K.'s Crazy Anti-EU Food Myths

Quote

"It is absolutely crazy that the EU is telling us what shape our bananas have got to be," says Brexit's foremost cheerleader, Boris Johnson. The former mayor of London, whose mop of blonde hair is as artfully tousled as his facts, was cannily invoking one of the oldest and most persistent mistruths about EU bureaucracy – that it has banned "bendy bananas" from being imported into the U.K.

EU rules do not ban any kind of banana, no matter how straight or curved it may be. What they do, however, is classify the pricing of bananas according to their shape: The best ones must be "free from malformation or abnormal curvature;" the next best can have "slight defects of shape;" and the cheapest or poorest quality can display "defects of shape." And though this grading scheme might discriminate against a perfectly good but defectively shaped banana, it hardly amounts to a ban.

 

[Deepinthailand]

Try looking at the list of EU directives I think you'll find.OH YES THEY DID.

[dick dasterdly]

I'm at a loss as to why anyone would waste money on starting a court case as to whether brexit could be reversed?

 

Of course it can!  A General Election with a party advocating reversing the referendum result and the (likely) parliament vote to activate article 50, could eventually result in a party with a mandate to come up with a new law to nullify the activating article 50 parliamentary vote.

 

Alternatively, even once the UK leaves the EU - a political party can stand for re-joining, and (assuming the EU countries agree) rejoin.

 

In short, what is the point of this court case?

Edited January 28, 2017 by dick dasterdly

[eeyang wah]

16 minutes ago, Deepinthailand said:

I have to completely disagree. 1 point (I can think of so many) the EU will no longer tell the British what size and type of bend a bannana has to have. And yes they did before you say rubish.

Not my main reasons for getting out of EU but something like that just proves how pedantic the EU parliament really are wasting money on silly stupid directives

So the best reason you can come up with for this ghastly mess is some nonsense about bananas that may not even be true? Brilliant. Well done. 

[eeyang wah]

23 minutes ago, Deepinthailand said:

I have to completely disagree. 1 point (I can think of so many) the EU will no longer tell the British what size and type of bend a bannana has to have. And yes they did before you say rubish.

Not my main reasons for getting out of EU but something like that just proves how pedantic the EU parliament really are wasting money on silly stupid directives

Excuse me, I must admit you did say it's not one of your main reasons. Care to elaborate on what they might be?

[jpinx]

11 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I'm at a loss as to why anyone would waste money on starting a court case as to why brexit could be reversed?

 

Of course it can!  A General Election with a party advocating reversing the referendum result and the (likely) parliament vote to activate article 50, could eventually result in a party with a mandate to come up with a new law to nullify the activating article 50 parliamentary vote.

 

Alternatively, even once the UK leaves the EU - a political party can stand for re-joining, and (assuming the EU countries agree) rejoin.

 

In short, what is the point of this court case?

The OP actually explains what it's about fairly well, but fails to extrapolate the consequences...

[Alan Deer]

44 minutes ago, jpinx said:

Becoming a colony of Germany might be acceptable to France and others, but not UK.    To say that there is no reason to stay merely demonstrates the narrow-minded ambitions of the people advocating remaining in the EU.  The biggest reason to leave is that the majority of voters said so, and that's democracy. :)

QED - no rational comments EVER from the Brexit camp.....

[melvinmelvin]

21 hours ago, eeyang wah said:

It truly is a messy situation! The government promised they would follow whatever the people decided, but it turns out they didn't have the power to make that promise. 

 

yes, and that does not bode well for the Brexit negos

The UK PM has so far demonstrated twice that she has a somewhat failing grip of what goes and what does not go

within the UK legal system, I'm not impressed

The negos will envolve an awfull lot of legal nitty gritty, hopefully the PM will keep some distance and leave decision

making power to those in the knows